- 1 Clinical Question
- 2 Bottom Line
- 3 Major Points
- 4 Guidelines
- 5 Design
- 6 Population
- 7 Interventions
- 8 Outcomes
- 9 Criticisms
- 10 Funding
- 11 Further Reading
In patients with T2DM at high risk for CV events, does intensive BP control (SBP <120 mmHg) reduce rates of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV mortality when compared to standard BP control (SBP <140 mmHg)?
In patients with T2DM at high risk for CV events, targeting SBP <120 mmHg did not reduce rates of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV mortality when compared to a target SBP <140 mmHg.
Patients with T2DM are at elevated risk for CVD. HTN is an independent risk factor for CVD. The JNC 7 recommended targeting SBP to 130 mmHg despite a lack of large RCTs supporting this recommendation.
The 2010 Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure (ACCORD BP) trial randomized 4,733 patients with T2DM at elevated risk for CVD to intensive BP control (SBP <120 mmHg) or standard BP control (SBP <140 mmHg) in an open-label fashion. With a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there was no difference in nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV mortality between the two groups. There was a very small reduction in stroke risk with intensive BP control (0.32%/yr vs. 0.53%/yr), though NNT was 476 patients per year. The intensive therapy group was on more medications and had a higher rate of serious adverse events due to medications (3.3% vs. 1.27%; NNH 49). Of note, the intensive group's SBP was close to the goal of <120 mmHg, the standard therapy group's average SBP was in the low-130s.
The results of ACCORD BP led to the JNC 8 (2013) BP targets diabetics to increase to <140/90 mm Hg. The 2017 AHA-led hypertension guidelines redefined hypertension from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg and recommended treating diabetics to <130/80 mm Hg.
2017 ACC AHA AAPA ABC ACPM AGS APhA ASH ASPC NMA PCNA Hypertension (2017, adapted)
- New definitions for BP ranges: Normal BP is <120/<80, elevated BP is 120-129/<80, stage 1 HTN is 130-139/80-89, and stage 2 HTN is ≥140/≥90 mm Hg
- First line agents include thiazide diuretics (chlorthalidone preferred), CCBs, and ACE-inhibitors or ARBs (COR I, LOE A)
- For diabetics, treat to BP goal <130/80 mm Hg (COR I, LOE B-R for SBP and C-EO for DBP)
- Any first-line medication is effective (COR I, LOE A), but consider ACE-inhibitors and ARBs if albuminuria (COR IIb, LOE B-NR)
- Multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label trial
- Setting: 77 centers in Canada and United States
- N=4,733 (goal sample size 4,200)
- Intensive BP control (n=2,362)
- Conventional BP control (n=2,371)
- Enrollment: 2001 and 2003-2005
- Mean follow-up: 4.7 years
- Primary Outcome: Nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV mortality
- Type 2 diabetes mellitus
- Hemoglobin A1C ≥7.5%
- Age ≥40 years with CVD
- Age ≥55 years with any of the following:
- ≥2 CV risk factors (dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, or obesity)
- BMI >45 kg/m2
- Creatinine >1.5mg/dL (132.6 umol/L)
- Other serious illness
- Age ≥80 was added in 2003
From both groups combined.
- Demographics: Age 62 years, 48% female
- Race or ethnic group: Non-Hispanic white 61%, black 24%, Hispanic 7.0%
- Education: Less than high school 16%, high school or GED 27%, some college 32%, college or higher degree 24%
- PMH: Prior CV event 34%, prior HF 4%, smoker 13.2% (former smoker 42%),
- Baseline health data: Weight 92 kg, BMI 21 kg/m2, BP 139/76 mmHg
- Diabetes data: Duration of diabetes 10 years, hemoglobin A1c 8.3%, fasting glucose 175 mg/dL
- Other laboratory data: Tchol 192 mg/dL, LDL 110 mg/dL, women's HDL 51 mg/dL, men's HDL 42 mg/dL, trigylcerides 147 mg/dL, potassium 4.5 mg/dL, creatinine 0.9 mg/dL (eGFR 92 mL/min/1.73 m2, urine albumin:creatinine 14.3
- Open-label randomization to a group:
- Intensive BP control - Goal SBP <120 mmHg
- Standard BP control - Goal SBP <140 mmHg
- BP was controlled with conventional therapies
Comparisons are intensive BP control vs. standard BP control.
- Nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV mortality
- 1.87%/yr vs. 2.09%/yr (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73-1.06; P=0.20)
- Nonfatal myocardial infarction
- 1.13%/yr vs. 1.28%/yr (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.68-1.10; P=0.25)
- Any: 0.32%/yr vs. 0.53%/yr (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39-0.89; P=0.01; NNT 476/yr)
- Nonfatal: 0.30%/yr vs. 0.47%/yr (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-0.96; P=0.03; NNT 588/yr)
- All-cause mortality
- 1.28%/yr vs. 1.19%/yr (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.85-1.35; P=0.55)
- CV mortality
- 0.52%/yr vs. 0.49%/yr (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.74-1.52; P=0.74)
- Primary outcome or revascularization or nonfatal heart failure
- 5.10%/yr vs. 5.31%/yr (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.84-1.07; P=0.40)
- Major coronary disease event
- Fatal coronary event, nonfatal MI, or unstable angina.
- 2.31%/yr vs. 2.41%/yr (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.79-1.12; P=0.50)
- Fatal or nonfatal HF
- 0.73%/yr vs. 0.78%/yr (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.70-1.26; P=0.67)
- BP at month 4
- SBP: 119.3 vs. 133.5 mmHg
- DBP: 64.4 vs. 70.5 mmHg
- BP medications in first year
- 3.4 vs. 2.1
- Hemoglobin A1c
- 7.6% vs. 7.5% (P=0.13)
- LDL: 98.7 vs. 96.8 mg/dL (P=0.10)
- HDL: 46.7 vs. 47.8 mg/dL (P=0.02)
- TG: 138 vs. 131 mg/dL (P=0.001)
- Renal laboratory
- eGFR: 74.8 vs. 80.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P<0.001)
- Urinary albumin:creatinine: 12.6 vs. 14.9 (ratio is mg:g; P<0.001)
- Microalbuminuria: 30.2% vs. 32.3% (P=0.13)
- Macroalbuminuria: 6.6% vs. 8.7% (P=0.009; NNT 47)
No significant interaction among prespecified subgroups, including gender, age, ethnicity, prior CVD, glycemia goal assignment, baseline A1c, baseline BP, and number of anti-HTN medications at baseline.
- Defined as life-threatening, causing permanent disability, or necessitating hospitalization.
- Attributed to BP medications: 3.3% vs. 1.27% (P<0.001; NNH 49)
- Hypotension: 0.7% vs. 0.04% (P<0.001; NNH 152)
- Syncope: 0.5% vs. 0.21% (P=0.10)
- Bradycardia or arrhythmia: 0.5% vs. 0.13% (P=0.02; NNH 270)
- Hyperkalemia: 0.4% vs. 0.04% (P=0.01; NNH 278)
- Angioedema: 0.3% vs. 0.17% (P=0.55)
- Renal Failure: 0.2% vs. 0.04% (P=0.12)
- ESRD or need for dialysis 2.5% vs. 2.4% (P=0.93)
- Laboratory abnormalities
- Potassium <3.2 mmol/L: 2.1% vs. 1.1% (P=0.01; NNH 100)
- Potassium >5.9 mmol/L: 3.1% vs. 3.0% (P=0.93)
- eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2: 4.2% vs. 2.2% (P<0.001; NNH 50)
- Quality of life
- Hives or swelling: 8.8% vs. 8.8% (P=1.00)
- Dizziness upon standing: 44.3% vs. 40.3% (P=0.36)
- Patients were late into disease process and may have missed opportunity for benefit (mean age 62, 34% had CV events before trial, avg 10 yrs of DM)
- Not blinded
- Underpowered because of the lower-than-expected rate of events
- Duration of follow-up may not have been sufficient
- Did not compare the JNC 7's recommendation of 130 mmHg to 140 mmHg
- Not powered to detect renal outcomes
- BP lowering may have been too aggressive and caused harm
- Few individuals of Hispanic ethnicity enrolled
- Multiple public sources (CDC and NIH including NHLBI, NIDDK, NIA, National Eye Institute)
- Various Drug companies donated medications, equipment, and supplies but had no role in the design of the study, the accrual or analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript
- Whelton PK et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2017. :.
- Nilsson PM. "Editorial: ACCORD and risk-factor control in type 2 diabetes." The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362:1628-1630.
- Elley C and Selak V. "ACP Journal Club: Intensive blood pressure control did not prevent major CV events more than standard control in type 2 diabetes." Annals of Internal Medicine. 2010;153(2):JC1-JC4.
- Multiple authors. "Correspondence: Blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. 2010;363:695-697.